No consent in instructor/trainee relationships

Updated 11:47 pm, Saturday, July 7, 2012

There are apparently some legal distinctions between consensual and coerced sex when it comes to military instructors and their trainees.

These distinctions are lost on me.

A story.

Julie, a Texan, joined the Army right out of high school. She left the Army in 2004 after serving three years, including a stint in Kuwait. I'm not using Julie's real name because she is now a Defense Department civilian employee.

After boot camp, in training for her job specialty, she and an instructor engaged in what began as flirtation and migrated to a full-blown relationship. Julie is a lesbian, and this was long before the repeal of don't ask, don't tell. This explains the secrecy of the relationship, but the sexual orientation of the two partners is not what matters here.

Boy carted off in ambulance after S.A. shooting as relatives scream in anguishSan Antonio Express-News

But it happened this way. “One day she gave me her number, and I felt so special,” Julie said.

This bespeaks a balance of power and influence that will always render such relationships improper. And this will be true whether the trainee is the pursuer or the pursued. Julie knew of women who were pursuers.

But can consent even be possible in these settings? It's hard to make the case.

A story last Sunday in the San Antonio Express-News by Karisa King and Sig Christenson explained a bit of the dynamics at work at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland in cases that are part of a burgeoning sex scandal. According to accounts under oath, two recruits were requested to meet their basic training instructors in a store room. One couple had intercourse. The other couple engaged in another sexual act.

There was no physical force, no physical resistance, no screams, no immediate reporting to authorities. And, still, this was not consensual. Not OK. One victim said she felt she had no choice.

That balance of power, you see. Of the 31 cases at Lackland, only one woman came forward on her own to report the incident.

Julie, with the benefit of time, distance and maturity, said she can see impropriety when one of the partners is in a “power/authority position.”

Right. Even if this isn't precisely clear to the people involved at the time.

Another story: In Navy boot camp in the '70s, my company commander (the drill instructor), told us his birthday was approaching. Tradition, he said, dictated that his sailors give money as a birthday gift. And the company yeoman — me — would be tasked with collecting this.

I didn't even think to question. Much later, I wondered whether he had a “birthday” with every new unit. But, even if it was his birthday, who was going to say, no? Few if any did.

This in no way equates to sexual assault, but note a similar backdrop: a culture of unquestioning obedience and, not infrequently, fear.

The military is about as much of an absolute, closed institution as possible. Authority speaks with something akin to absolute authority.

Even now, with the benefit of time, distance and maturity, I couldn't tell you with certainty if refusal or disclosure would have resulted in punishment for my company commander or me. Or both. The same doubts — except heightened — exist when sexual abuse is involved.

The military, faced with reports of sexual assaults not just in San Antonio but even near combat zones, is trying to change this culture of silence and how cases are reported. And it's not moving boldly or fast enough.

But consent in the context of these military trainer-trainee relationships? There can be none.